I think PCGS will certify coins as genuine, but stay away from grading them if they are considered damaged.
The 91 in the ID number indicated " questionable color ". I don't think PCGS states in its FAQ that this means it IS AT, just that it is questionable, so they decline to grade the coin. To me it would be questionable also. Since toning is a chemical process, Artificial can be the same chemical process as Natural, just "pushed" along by man's intervention, and no process can tell them apart. You see some who "authoritatively " say it is AT or NT, but unless it is poorly done, or used an un-natural chemical reaction to get colors not obtained in nature, one can only say "my opinion". I am very sure many AT coins are in any TPG's holders, but since no one knows if the reaction occurred in 2 days or 2 decades, those that appear feasible are graded, those questionable are not. Jim
I think someone was really pushing it to think that coin was going to come back graded. They wasted their money but I'm sure they're back in the kitchen. As far as my thoughts on the big TPG's doing this. I like it for authenticating the right coins.
There is a difference between "slabbing" and "grading" -- the first is for "problem"/"not market acceptable" coins, and the second for "problem-free"/"market acceptable" coins.
p.s. I've got news for you guys, the TPGs grade AT coins all the time -- and they don't always put them in genuine holders. There are lots of AT coins in problem-free holders, too.
I was a little surprised at the reactions of the NGC members in that thread. They were basically upset thinking that the coin doctors will now be able to get their AT crap in PCGS holders and fleece the newbies of the numismatic world. While I understand their concern, at some point, caveat emptor must apply. Every new collector I have ever dealt with asks "what is the grade/what is it worth." They will recognize that these coins don't have and assigned grade. If they purchase the coin simply because it is in a PCGS holder with out finding out why there is not assigned grade, then they deserve to learn a lesson the hard way. Furthermore, the entire tone of the thread took on a little reverse kool aid feel. NGC is just as guilty as PCGS when it comes to encapsulating AT (QT) coins IMO. My personal opinion on this matter is that there is no way to definitively determine the originality of the toning on a coin. Therefore, I think the TPG's should encapsulate every toned coin, AT included. After all, the coin is still what the grade says on the slab. During this process, the TPG's should use the designation QT (questionable toning) for any coin that they believe is not NT. The only question then becomes how stringent should the TPG's be with the QT designation. Paul
